---------------------------------------
INTOLERANCE
These days, misconceptions about Islam are abound. Not only is it depicted in the media and by Muslim spokesman as a “religion of peace”, they also claim that it is a tolerant religion – indeed, it is far more tolerant, they say, than any other faith.
This irenic picture of Islam is totally false, as any serious examination of its sacred texts reveals. It also has serious implications for Western foreign and domestic policy. Western leaders accept unquestioningly that Muslim immigrants are peaceful and tolerant, and will quite happily assimilate. Any questioning of this dogma has been labelled hate speech. Reality and common sense have given way to polite falsehoods.
This essay will concentrate on two key areas of Islamic intolerance: enmity towards other religious groups; and the violent suppression by Muslims of any criticism of Islam, Muhammad or the Qur'an. It will also explain why it is important that we understand these problems before it is too late.
Enmity towards other religious groups
Muslims are fond of quoting the following verse from the Qur'an, to demonstrate that Islam is tolerant and respectful towards other faiths: “Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.” (2:62)
It would seem, then, that Allah rewards anyone of good faith, regardless of whether they are Muslim or non-Muslim. However, Islamic commentators tend not to believe that this verse has universal application. Ibn Kathir (d.1373) quotes Ibn Abbas – Muhammad's cousin, who was known for his great knowledge of Islam – to assert: “Allah does not accept any deed or work from anyone, unless it conforms to the Law of Muhammad that is, after Allah sent Muhammad. Before that, every person who followed the guidance of his own Prophet was on the correct path, following the correct guidance and was saved.” So in other words, those Jews and Christians who lived before Muhammad brought Islam to the world will be saved, while those who lived during or after Muhammad's time and yet rejected his message will not.
This is confirmed in a hadith:
“By Him in Whose hand is the life of Muhammad, he who amongst the community of Jews or Christians hears about me, but does not affirm his belief in that with which I have been sent and dies in this state (of disbelief), he shall be but one of the denizens of Hell-Fire.” (Sahih Muslim b.1, no.284)
Indeed, the majority of the Qur'an's passages about non-Muslims cast them in a less than favourable light. This begins in the Qur'an's opening chapter, the Fatiha, which has a status in Islam similar to that of the Lord's Prayer for Christians, and is recited multiple times every day by the pious Muslim believer: “Show us the straight path, the path of those whom Thou hast favoured; not the (path) of those who earn Thine anger nor of those who go astray.” (1:6-7) The traditional understanding of this is that the “straight path” is Islam, while those who have earned Allah's anger and gone astray are the Jews and Christians. Ibn Kathir explains: “These two paths are the paths of the Christians and Jews...the Jews abandoned practising the religion, while the Christians lost the true knowledge. This is why ‘anger’ descended upon the Jews, while being described as ‘led astray’ is more appropriate of the Christians.”
Although Jews and Christians are never mentioned in the text, almost all Muslim commentators share this view, including Tabari (d.923), Zamakhshari (d.1144) and al-Suyuti (d.1505).
The idea that Jews and Christians have earned Allah's anger and curses is repeated often in the Qur'an, because Muslims believe that Jewish and Christian prophets, such as Moses and Jesus, were in fact Muslims who taught Islam, and that the Jews and Christians have corrupted their scriptures; thus Judaism and Christianity are illegitimate:
“We gave Moses the Book and followed him up with a succession of messengers; We gave Jesus the son of Mary Clear (Signs) and strengthened him with the holy spirit...And when there comes to them a Book from Allah, confirming what is with them,- although from of old they had prayed for victory against those without Faith,- when there comes to them that which they (should) have recognised, they refuse to believe in it but the curse of Allah is on those without Faith. Miserable is the price for which they have sold their souls, in that they deny (the revelation) which Allah has sent down, in insolent envy that Allah of His Grace should send it to any of His servants He pleases: Thus have they drawn on themselves Wrath upon Wrath. And humiliating is the punishment of those who reject Faith.” (2:87-90)
Elsewhere, the People of the Book are told that Allah has cursed them for their beliefs: “The Jews call 'Uzair [Ezra] a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!” (9:30)
Not only does the Qur'an deny the Christian belief that Jesus is the Son of God, it also denies that he was crucified: “That they said (in boast): 'We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah'; but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not.” (4:157) Ibn Kathir explains that it was not Jesus on the cross, but someone else who had been made to look like him, “while a hole opened in the roof of the house, and ‘Isa (Jesus) was made to sleep and ascended to heaven while asleep.” This gives the lie to those who claim that Muslims and Christians essentially worship the same God and share the same beliefs.
The Qur'an even admonishes its followers not to befriend Jews or Christians: “O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.” (5:51)
This intolerance bodes badly for the end-times, which Muhammad envisioned as days of blood and slaughter. Muslims will kill Jews (Muslim b.41, no.6985, and others), while Christians will fare little better. In a bizarre twist, Jesus will return at the end of the world and remove the discriminatory system of the dhimma, which denies equality of rights to non-Muslims, not by promoting a new era of peace and tolerance but by abolishing Christianity and forcefully converting everyone to Islam:
“He [Jesus] will descend to the earth...He will fight the people for the cause of Islam. He will break the cross, kill swine, and abolish jizya. Allah will perish all religions except Islam.” (Sunan Abu Dawud b.37, no.4310)
Obviously, none of this is conducive to happy and peaceful relations between Muslims and non-Muslims. The logical endpoint of this intolerance is twofold: enmity towards unbelievers, and subsequently persecution of them.
Jews and Christians are regularly persecuted in Muslim lands. I have already covered anti-Jewish persecution in another essay, but in many parts of the world, Christians are treated just as badly. Christian populations in the Middle East today are dwindling rapidly as they seek to flee persecution at the hands of Muslim radicals. Half the Christian population of Iraq has fled since the US invasion of the country in 2003, with some comparing the conditions for Christians in Iraq today unfavourably to life under Saddam Hussein, although even then they had a hard time. Overall, the Christian population of the Middle East has dropped from about 20% in 1900 to less than 2% today.
While individual Muslims may be as tolerant as anyone else, there is no denying the fact that the overall belief system of Islam remains profoundly intolerant of other religious groups. It is this fact – not Western foreign policy or capitalism – which is causing continued damage to Judeo-Christian-Islamic relations, and which acts as a constant barrier to Muslim assimilation in the West. If the “three Abrahamic faiths” all want to get along, Islam must make the first move. Jews and Christians have repeatedly expressed their desire to live peacefully as equals with Muslims. All Islam has ever offered in return is jihad.
Suppressing criticism of Islam
Recent years have heralded an increase in violent outbursts of murderous rage from Muslim mobs whenever they deem that Islam, Muhammad or the Qur'an have been “insulted” in some way. We have seen countless examples of this in the last few decades. To name a few examples:
In 1989, Salman Rushdie's novel The Satanic Verses led to a death fatwa being placed on Rushdie by Ayatollah Khomeini. The novel contained satirical references to Muhammad, and the title comes from a controversial incident in the Prophet's life which has been a scandal to Muslims for centuries. Following publication of the book, Muslim riots led to some deaths, particularly in India.
In 2004, Dutch film-maker Theo Van Gogh was killed by a Muslim in response to a film he had made which criticised the Islamic treatment of women. At his trial, the murderer stated: “What moved me to do what I did was purely my faith. I was motivated by the law that commands me to cut off the head of anyone who insults Allah and his Prophet.”
In late 2005 and early 2006, there were worldwide Muslim riots after Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published a number of satirical cartoons featuring Muhammad. Most of these cartoons were entirely innocuous, while three made a connection between Muhammad and terrorism. While Muslims have never rioted when men like Osama bin Laden make this same connection, in the case of the cartoons they murdered at least 139 people, and the cartoonists themselves now live under death threats. To state the obvious, this seems an odd way to protest the assertion that Islam is connected with violence.
And finally, in 2007 British teacher Gillian Gibbons was arrested in the Sudan for naming a teddy bear Muhammad. She had not even intended to name the toy after the Prophet himself; rather, she chose the name at the suggestion of one of her pupils, who was named Muhammad. But this did not move enraged rioters in the country, who called for her immediate execution. She was eventually released after international pressure.
All of this baffles many Western analysts, some of whom even propose limitations on free speech in the hope of avoiding future similar incidents, which would surely lead to Islam becoming a protected class, immune to criticism or even mockery. It is clear that there is something different about Islam, for no other religious groups react this way to real or imagined insults to their religion. When Andres Serrano unveiled his controversial “artwork” Piss Christ, no Christians rioted or killed anyone. There were no outbreaks of violence in Israel after academic Benny Shanon theorised that Moses and the Israelites were high on drugs. So what is it that makes Islam so different from other religions in the way it responds to criticism and mockery?
Much of the blame for this intolerance must be laid at the feet of Muhammad himself, who on a multitude of occasions displayed a startling lack of restraint. This partly manifested itself in his wars of conquest against non-Muslims inside and outside Arabia, but Muhammad did not just deal with his enemies by war and battle – he had them assassinated, too. Early Islamic sources show that on a number of occasions, the Prophet of Islam ordered the killing of those who criticised, mocked, or otherwise annoyed him. Two examples will suffice.
Not long after the Battle of Badr (624 AD), Muhammad became infuriated by a Jewish poet named K'ab bin al-Ashraf, who, according to the Prophet's earliest biographer Ibn Ishaq (d.773), “composed amatory verses of an insulting nature about the Muslim women.” Muhammad asked his followers: “Who is willing to kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?” A Muslim volunteered to be the assassin, adding, “Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab).” Muhammad gave him permission to use deceit to achieve the murder, and the assassin duly obliged. (Sahih Bukhari v.5, b.59, no.369)
Towards the end of his life, after he had conquered Mecca, Muhammad also ordered the assassination of another Jewish poet, this time a pregnant woman who had written verses attacking Muslims for obeying “a stranger who is none of yours”. She was swiftly killed, along with her unborn child. However, before long the assassin began to feel guilty about what he had done. Muhammad reassured him by saying, “You have helped God and his Apostle”, and clearly without guilt or remorse, added, “Two goats won't butt their heads about her.”
Since Muhammad is held up in Islamic theology as the Perfect Man (see Qur'an 33:21; 68:4), it is perhaps not surprising that prohibitions against insulting him, or the religion of Islam in general, worked their way into Islamic jurisprudence, where they remain to this day.
The manual of Shafi'i law Umdat al-Salik (Reliance of the Traveller), which in 1991 was certified by Cairo's Al-Azhar University as conforming “to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni community”, states that if a non-Muslim “mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet, or Islam”, then they may face one of four fates, depending on the will of the imam: “death, slavery, release without paying anything, or ransoming himself in exchange for money or for a Muslim captive held by the enemy.”
According to Ahmad Hasan, the translator of the hadith collection Sunan Abu Dawud, there is a “difference of opinion” among the schools of jurisprudence on the legitimacy of killing a non-Muslim who insults Islam. The Shafi'i school clearly endorses it. But the Hanafi school “is of the opinion that he [a non-Muslim] should not be killed.” The Maliki school, however, “maintains that he should be killed except [if] he embraces Islam.” Meanwhile, “It is unanimously agreed that if a Muslim abuses or insults the Prophet...he should be killed”.
Given all of this, it should not be a great shock to us that many Muslims today believe the proper response to a perceived insult to their religion is to kill the perpetrator, or whoever else happens to be in the way. At least some of the Islamic legal schools endorse this, but perhaps the greatest influence is the behaviour of Muhammad himself, who did not hesitate to have people killed if they insulted him. There is a clear and vast gulf between the West and the Islamic world when it comes to matters of free speech and rational dialogue.
If Islam is made off-limits for mockery or critical evaluation, the values of free speech which are a hallmark of Western civilisation will have been erased and replaced with an Islamic-style theocracy. If we try to stifle speech because it is “offensive” to someone, then the whole notion of free speech has been emptied of its fundamental principles, and has thus become meaningless. Furthermore, it undermines our ability to examine the motivations and goals of Islamic jihadists, thus hampering our ability to combat them effectively.
Conclusion
In more ways than one, Islam is a profoundly intolerant religion. The behaviour of Muhammad and his words and beliefs as preserved in the Qur'an remain normative for all time, as the eternal word of Allah, perfect and unchangeable. As a result, Islam has not modernised since its inception, and so these attitudes of intolerance are being imbibed by Muslims all around the world to this day. And if there is no Islamic reform in the near future, there is no reason to think things will change.
No comments:
Post a Comment